Engagement of Princess Maria Laura and William Isvy; 27 Dec 2021

[Tatiana Maria]

It appears to me that William Isvy's profile differs somewhat from the usual choice of a groom for a daughter of a Habsburg archduke and a Belgian royal princess. I would expect someone from a traditional Catholic royal or noble family, but, as I said before, royals now go to "normal" schools and universities and have normal jobs, so it is inevitable that their social circle will be enlarged to include especially the upper middle-class and wealthy burghers. With an expanded social circle, marriages outside the narrower royal/noble bubble are also more likely.

I would say the schools and jobs of royals generally remain significantly more elevated than those of the average citizen, but yes, you are right about the enlargement of royal social circles, and I see you are right about spouses from Catholic royal and noble houses being the norm on both sides of Princess Maria Laura's family. Of her six aunts and uncles, four chose their spouses from noble families. The same for Amedeo, her sole married sibling. Her cousin and close friend Olympia is married to Prince Napoléon (though I believe Olympia's only married sister has a commoner husband), and her sister Princess Luisa Maria reportedly has a partner from a noble family, although their brother Joachim's long-term partner Victoria Ortiz is an upper-class commoner.

Well, I think there is a slight difference between Lorenz's and William's family trees to say the least.

Is there any information on William's family tree other than the fact that his mother is British and his father is French-Moroccan? Depending on the country, it is certainly possible to have noble ancestors, or even belong to a noble family, while being a plain Mr.

Note that William Isvy graduated high school from a prestigious fee-paying school in an upscale area of London, rather than a state school as with most Britons, which suggests that his family is well off.

I am not trying to be picky or implying that William is not a suitable husband for Maria Laura, but we cannot deny that it is an unequal marriage, which is becoming the norm for younger royals.

Because she is a princess and he is a commoner? I'd say the most important is that they are equal in character, values and general outlook on life.

In the language of European royal history, equal and unequal marriage refer to the legal status or social class of the spouses, not their character or values. By the 19th century, most European royal houses (including the Belgians) had introduced official or unofficial requirements concerning acceptable rank for consorts, whereas in the 21st century most will, in theory if not necessarily in practice, accept consorts of any social class. That is why the family origins of royal fiancé(e)s, and the evolving norms, are of historical interest.

 

[Skippy]

I know that and all, I just don't think of Princess Maria Laura and her fiancé in those terms, it doesn't seem like he has to pass a test for social acceptance. From the information we have been given about him and considering she lives in anonimity, in a way she is just as much a commoner as he is.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I know that and all, I just don't think of Princess Maria Laura and her fiancé in those terms, it doesn't seem like he has to pass a test for social acceptance. From the information we have been given about him and considering she lives in anonimity, in a way she is just as much a commoner as he is.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by a "test for social acceptance", but I would consider "social acceptance" to be a different affair than official or unofficial rank and equality requirements for the dynasticity of marriages. Many Swedish, Danish, and Spanish princes and princesses in the 20th century married unequally, thereby renouncing their dynastic rights, but generally they and their spouses were accepted into the social circles of their royal relatives. On the other hand, history includes examples of royal consorts whose marriages were unquestionably equal and dynastic, but were disliked and socially excluded by their spouse's relatives.

In my view, social acceptance is not automatic for royal spouses, even for a low-profile royal like Maria Laura. Had she gotten engaged to the Belgian equivalent of Jeffrey Epstein, for example, I believe he would have had a difficult time finding social acceptance from his in-laws.

I don't think living in anonymity is perceived as a "commoner" quality within the current royal family; indeed it seems to me that the King in particular desires and expects discretion from his royal family members.

 

[Skippy]

I may be misunderstanding what you mean by a "test for social acceptance", but I would consider "social acceptance" to be a different affair than official or unofficial rank and equality requirements for the dynasticity of marriages. Many Swedish, Danish, and Spanish princes and princesses in the 20th century married unequally, thereby renouncing their dynastic rights, but generally they and their spouses were accepted into the social circles of their royal relatives. On the other hand, history includes examples of royal consorts whose marriages were unquestionably equal and dynastic, but were disliked and socially excluded by their spouse's relatives.

In my view, social acceptance is not automatic for royal spouses, even for a low-profile royal like Maria Laura. Had she gotten engaged to the Belgian equivalent of Jeffrey Epstein, for example, I believe he would have had a difficult time finding social acceptance from his in-laws.

I don't think living in anonymity is perceived as a "commoner" quality within the current royal family; indeed it seems to me that the King in particular desires and expects discretion from his royal family members.

What I mean with "test for social acceptance" is that he doesn't seem to have a questionable past or background. I.e. it doesn't seem that he has to "prove" himself as a worthy fiancé/future husband of Princess Maria Laura. And she has asked permission from King Philippe beforehand (https://www.hln.be/royalty/zij-vroe...een-tweede-amadeogate-kon-vermijden~ae836d08/). I don't think she would have received it had her fiancé been questionable.

Sure, royals can not come home with anyone, but Mr. William Isvy seems perfectly acceptable to me - a commoner or not. That is basically what my opinion comes down to. Princess Maria Laura does not strike me as someone for whom only a higher ranking person is good enough. My bet is in practice and daily life they are not that different.

From a dynastical viewpoint they may be unequal indeed, but IMO personal compatibility is more important.
And because she is/they are discreet, they can live in anonymity and be just like commoners.
Winners all around.


My initial reaction was a bit prickly, but Mbruno (to whom I responded) and I look at it from different angles. I think in essence we come to the same point.

 

[maria-olivia]

The second Wedding of a King's Niece in Belgium since her Mother Princess Astrid
The former Weddings were Princesses Hentiette and Josephine , daughters of Philippe , Count de Flanders Nieces of King Leopold II.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What I mean with "test for social acceptance" is that he doesn't seem to have a questionable past or background. I.e. it doesn't seem that he has to "prove" himself as a worthy fiancé/future husband of Princess Maria Laura. And she has asked permission from King Philippe beforehand (https://www.hln.be/royalty/zij-vroe...een-tweede-amadeogate-kon-vermijden~ae836d08/). I don't think she would have received it had her fiancé been questionable.

Sure, royals can not come home with anyone, but Mr. William Isvy seems perfectly acceptable to me - a commoner or not. That is basically what my opinion comes down to. Princess Maria Laura does not strike me as someone for whom only a higher ranking person is good enough. My bet is in practice and daily life they are not that different.

From a dynastical viewpoint they may be unequal indeed, but IMO personal compatibility is more important.
And because she is/they are discreet, they can live in anonymity and be just like commoners.
Winners all around.


My initial reaction was a bit prickly, but Mbruno (to whom I responded) and I look at it from different angles. I think in essence we come to the same point.

I did not view your reactions as prickly, and I understand the points you are making, but with all respect, I think you have misinterpreted what Mbruno was saying.

There are several issues at play in this discussion, and it is necessary to draw a clear line between them:

1. The historical and current prevalence of marriages between royals and nobles versus marriages between royals and commoners.
2. The evolving standards for dynastic marriages. (In the context of the present-day Belgian Royal House, a marriage is dynastic if granted authorization by the King through a Royal Decree countersigned by the Government.)
3. The social acceptability of spouses to the King.
4. The social acceptability of spouses to one another.
5. The social acceptability of spouses to royal watchers such as yourself, myself, and Mbruno.

I believe you are discussing points 3 through 5, whereas Mbruno was discussing points 1 and 2. You appear to be arguing that William Isvy is a good choice of husband. But no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

His personal compatibility with Princess Maria Laura is important to the couple, and his personal popularity with the King, the Royal Family, and the Belgian public may be important to the monarchy. But they are unrelated to Mbruno's points about the historical context of marriages to commoners being less usual, and frequently treated as unequal or non-dynastic, in earlier generations.

 

[Skippy]

I did not view your reactions as prickly, and I understand the points you are making, but with all respect, I think you have misinterpreted what Mbruno was saying.

There are several issues at play in this discussion, and it is necessary to draw a clear line between them:

1. The historical and current prevalence of marriages between royals and nobles versus marriages between royals and commoners.
2. The evolving standards for dynastic marriages. (In the context of the present-day Belgian Royal House, a marriage is dynastic if granted authorization by the King through a Royal Decree countersigned by the Government.)
3. The social acceptability of spouses to the King.
4. The social acceptability of spouses to one another.
5. The social acceptability of spouses to royal watchers such as yourself, myself, and Mbruno.

I believe you are discussing points 3 through 5, whereas Mbruno was discussing points 1 and 2. You appear to be arguing that William Isvy is a good choice of husband. But no one in this thread has claimed otherwise.

His personal compatibility with Princess Maria Laura is important to the couple, and his personal popularity with the King, the Royal Family, and the Belgian public may be important to the monarchy. But they are unrelated to Mbruno's points about the historical context of marriages to commoners being less usual, and frequently treated as unequal or non-dynastic, in earlier generations.

I get what you are saying. Indeed I went straight for point no. 4 and 5, and Mbruno highlighted point no. 1 and 2. I remember I felt a bit prickly when I posted my response at the time, hence my statement
I guess I sort of failed to see the broader picture in this case - and due to experience in my private sphere I look only at personal compatibility.

For the Belgian Royal House this marriage is indeed relatively new territory in terms of unequal marriages, save for Prince Laurent and Maria Laura's brother Amedeo (both unequal as well, as far as I know).

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

For the Belgian Royal House this marriage is indeed relatively new territory in terms of unequal marriages, save for Prince Laurent and Maria Laura's brother Amedeo (both unequal as well, as far as I know).

I agree that it's relatively new for the Belgian Royal Family, but Amedeo's wife Elisabetta is the daughter of a Countess and a Baron.

 

[Skippy]

I agree that it's relatively new for the Belgian Royal Family, but Amedeo's wife Elisabetta is the daughter of a Countess and a Baron.

Oh, I see. Thank you for the correction. Then it's truly a first for Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Oh, I see. Thank you for the correction. Then it's truly a first for Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz.

You're welcome ? Yes, I believe it really is a first for them.

 

[maria-olivia]

We are very happy with the Prince Lorenz and Princess Astrid surprise annoncement of the engagement of their Daughter Maria Laura.
A lady told me that she went shopping in Brussels with her daughters and Princess Maria Laura and nobody recognize her !
They will have a happy and private life out of Belgium.
And in the middle of the Year a Royal Wedding. .

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I haven't even thought about blue blood but indeed not the archetypical catholic aristocrat but hadn't Otto von Habsburg eleminated all dynastical requirements anyway?

I seem to recall a royal blogger or two saying that the current Habsburg standards for dynastic recognition of marriages still require a Christian spouse and a marriage which is valid according to Catholic religious laws. I do not personally know whether that is true.


On a related question, I have some confusion about why discussion concerning the dynasticity of Amedeo and Maria Laura's marriages (not in this particular thread, but on royalty websites in general) tends to circle around the potential dynastic requirements of the Habsburgs, instead of the potential dynastic requirements of the Belgians.

When Prince Amedeo originally did not receive King Philippe's permission to marry, he lost a substantive dynastic right, namely the right of succession to an existing crown (until permission was granted retroactively). In comparison, if Karl Habsburg as the head of the former imperial house of Austria had declared Amedeo's marriage to be non-dynastic, what consequences would Amedeo or his wife and children have faced? None as far as I can see.

So I am not sure why the Habsburg dynasticity is prioritized over the Belgian dynasticity in royal watchers' discussions of Amedeo's and Maria Laura's marriages. Could somebody explain that to me?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I seem to recall a royal blogger or two saying that the current Habsburg standards for dynastic recognition of marriages still require a Christian spouse and a marriage which is valid according to Catholic religious laws. I do not personally know whether that is true.


On a related question, I have some confusion about why discussion concerning the dynasticity of Amedeo and Maria Laura's marriages (not in this particular thread, but on royalty websites in general) tends to circle around the potential dynastic requirements of the Habsburgs, instead of the potential dynastic requirements of the Belgians.

When Prince Amedeo originally did not receive King Philippe's permission to marry, he lost a substantive dynastic right, namely the right of succession to an existing crown (until permission was granted retroactively). In comparison, if Karl Habsburg as the head of the former imperial house of Austria had declared Amedeo's marriage to be non-dynastic, what consequences would Amedeo or his wife and children have faced? None as far as I can see.

So I am not sure why the Habsburg dynasticity is prioritized over the Belgian dynasticity in royal watchers' discussions of Amedeo's and Maria Laura's marriages. Could somebody explain that to me?

I think it is just fascination with the once so mighty Habsburgers, known for their strict policies.


Famous is the scène in the Sissi trilogy in which Hofdame (lady-in-waiting) Sophie Gräfin Esterházy handed over Das spanische Hofzeremoniell into Empress Elizabeth's hands, with the duty to have it "auswendig zu lernen" (to memorize it completely).


The Spanish Court Etiquette was known as the most severe of all court etiquettes. So when suddenly a family, known for centuries of strictness, opens itself for all and everyone, that is possibly more facinating to see, regardless of any actual throne.

 

[JR76]

I seem to recall a royal blogger or two saying that the current Habsburg standards for dynastic recognition of marriages still require a Christian spouse and a marriage which is valid according to Catholic religious laws. I do not personally know whether that is true.





On a related question, I have some confusion about why discussion concerning the dynasticity of Amedeo and Maria Laura's marriages (not in this particular thread, but on royalty websites in general) tends to circle around the potential dynastic requirements of the Habsburgs, instead of the potential dynastic requirements of the Belgians.



When Prince Amedeo originally did not receive King Philippe's permission to marry, he lost a substantive dynastic right, namely the right of succession to an existing crown (until permission was granted retroactively). In comparison, if Karl Habsburg as the head of the former imperial house of Austria had declared Amedeo's marriage to be non-dynastic, what consequences would Amedeo or his wife and children have faced? None as far as I can see.



So I am not sure why the Habsburg dynasticity is prioritized over the Belgian dynasticity in royal watchers' discussions of Amedeo's and Maria Laura's marriages. Could somebody explain that to me?

From my point of view it's likely because while you seem to be more interested in discussing these issues based on what we find in current law texts and constitutions only many of us are also, and in some cases mostly, interested in the today (in many cases) unofficial titles, status and house laws of deposed royal houses and nobility of former monarchies and how that affects things like a marriage. In the case of Maria-Laura's her being a member of the House of Habsburg is just as interesting as her being a member of the House of Belgium. To me it's even more interesting since the throne of Belgium is like a parvenu compared to the Habsburgs who based their position as the foremost Christian dynasty on the nominal claim that they as Holy Roman emperors where the heirs of Ceasar and Augustus.

The consequences faced by Amadeo if his marriage hadn't been approved by Archduke Karl would have been that his children would not have been able to inherit his Imperial and Royal Habsburg titles. None of this would have any legal consequences, but history and tradition is often above the sense of law.

To my knowledge, today the only requirement for a Habsburg marriage to be deemed equal is that the bride marrying in is a Christian.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for answering, JR76, but just to be clear: My view is that personal levels of interest require no explanation or approval. (That said, I appreciate your and Duc_et_Pair's explanations for why many find the deposed Habsburgs more fascinating than reigning houses.)

There is, I would argue, a significant difference between personally finding a deposed ruling family's house laws, etc. more interesting than the role, history, duties, traditions and current rules of an existing monarchy, versus the tone of the discussions (to reiterate, I am not referring to this thread) which presume the deposed family's rules should be regarded as an objectively higher priority for the present-day general public and for Amedeo and Maria Laura themselves. My question is about the latter.

The consequences faced by Amadeo if his marriage hadn't been approved by Archduke Karl would have been that his children would not have been able to inherit his Imperial and Royal Habsburg titles. None of this would have any legal consequences, but history and tradition is often above the sense of law.

I am not personally aware of whether Karl Habsburg as head of house approved Amedeo's marriage, although there would seem to be no reason why not. But if Karl did not approve it, would it necessarily have consequences for the sense of history or traditions within Amedeo's own family? I am not sure it would. If his children grow up to feel it is historically meaningful to use Habsburg titles they inherited in Belgian law, they might use them whether the Habsburg family head considers the titles to be rightfully theirs or not. We can observe from the heated disputes in many other deposed houses (and even a few reigning houses) how troublesome it can be for family heads to convince their relatives to cooperate with their decisions about who does or does not have dynastic rights.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think it is just fascination with the once so mighty Habsburgers, known for their strict policies.

Famous is the scène in the Sissi trilogy in which Hofdame (lady-in-waiting) Sophie Gräfin Esterházy handed over Das spanische Hofzeremoniell into Empress Elizabeth's hands, with the duty to have it "auswendig zu lernen" (to memorize it completely).

The Spanish Court Etiquette was known as the most severe of all court etiquettes. So when suddenly a family, known for centuries of strictness, opens itself for all and everyone, that is possibly more facinating to see, regardless of any actual throne.

Thank you for the answer! While there is or should be a difference between royal watchers' private interests and the prince and princess's public interests (previous post), it seems very possible that many of the discussions would fail to establish the boundaries between the two. And that could explain the confusion.

Factually, have the marriage policies in the Belgian royal house been less strict than the marriage policies in the Austrian imperial house and the deposed house of Habsburg? Granted, the Belgian royal house apparently never had Austrian-style house rules defining equal marriages. But until 1959, the only marriages that the kings of the Belgians recognized as dynastic were to brides or grooms who belonged to sovereign or formerly sovereign houses. No dynastic marriage of a Belgian royal prince or princess to a commoner bride or groom took place until 2003, after such marriages had already been introduced to every other reigning royal house in Europe.

I agree that it's relatively new for the Belgian Royal Family, but Amedeo's wife Elisabetta is the daughter of a Countess and a Baron.

Elisabetta was "Nobile Elisabetta Maria Rosboch von Wolkenstein" in the biography distributed by the palace when her engagement was announced.

Then it's truly a first for Princess Astrid and Prince Lorenz.

It's said by many (but is it verifiable or only gossip?) that Lorenz boycotted the wedding ceremony of his cousin Karl Habsburg to Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza in 1993 because a bride from lower nobility was unequal according to the Austrian imperial house rules. If there is truth to that, it would be interesting to know what caused him to have a change of heart by the time his own children found their partners.

 

[maria-olivia]

The Brothers of Archduke Otto boycotted Karl's Wedding because of the bride's Father.
How was he dressed for the Wedding !!

Back to the thread , nobody will boycot Princess Laura's Wedding her Cousine Princess Eleonore , Archduke Karl's daughter married a belgian Commonor.

 

[Somebody]

Elisabetta was "Nobile Elisabetta Maria Rosboch von Wolkenstein" in the biography distributed by the palace when her engagement was announced.

It's said by many (but is it verifiable or only gossip?) that Lorenz boycotted the wedding ceremony of his cousin Karl Habsburg to Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza in 1993 because a bride from lower nobility was unequal according to the Austrian imperial house rules. If there is truth to that, it would be interesting to know what caused him to have a change of heart by the time his own children found their partners.

While Lorenz might still prefer royal or noble partners for his children, I wouldn't be surprised if it is considered more important for his sons who are to continue the Habsburg-Este line than for his daughters. Nonetheless, his younger son has a commoner girlfriend (from a rich and prestigious Spanish family but still commoners).

 

[Stefanie]

Can someone please post that photo of the engagement where they both sit on a wooden bench
It' s from Het nieuwsblad

 

[Skippy]

Can someone please post that photo of the engagement where they both sit on a wooden bench
It' s from Het nieuwsblad

Do you mean this one?
https://static.nieuwsblad.be/Assets...2/28/afbd4420-bd4d-4d77-a61d-f737b74d83e2.jpg

 

[Stefanie]

No, It' s from the picture series of the official engagement photos

 

[Stefanie]

Right now your link works, Skippy

 

[An Ard Ri]

Have there been any photos of the engagement ring?

 

[Blog Real]

I don't think there is any picture of the engagement ring.

 

[iceflower]

Have there been any photos of the engagement ring?

I thought the ring she wore on the engagement photo actually is her engagement ring, the one with the blue stone?

 

[Stefanie]

There is a short video of the couple on www.bunte.de

 

[Stefanie]

Another engagement photo:

https://images.app.goo.gl/uhfhotGMy7pnh8ri7.jpg

 

[Skippy]

Another engagement photo:

https://images.app.goo.gl/uhfhotGMy7pnh8ri7.jpg

The link doesn't work.

 

[Mbruno]

While Lorenz might still prefer royal or noble partners for his children, I wouldn't be surprised if it is considered more important for his sons who are to continue the Habsburg-Este line than for his daughters. Nonetheless, his younger son has a commoner girlfriend (from a rich and prestigious Spanish family but still commoners).

When there were still dreams of a restoration of the monarchy, I guess many deposed royal families still clung to the idea that unequal marriages would undermine their legitimacy. But all such hopes are gone now, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

Besides, there is a practical issue. Although I am not claiming royals are marrying for money, there is a trend now of many members of deposed royal houses marrying wealthy burghers or daughters thereof.

EDIT: Princess Maria Laura is an anomalous case, however, as she is both a member of a deposed ducal/royal/imperial house and 9th in line to the Belgian throne.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is a short video of the couple on www.bunte.de

If you mean the short video of the couple in London which accompanied the engagement announcement, it is embedded in many of the Belgian press reports, such as the VRT article posted earlier.

While Lorenz might still prefer royal or noble partners for his children, I wouldn't be surprised if it is considered more important for his sons who are to continue the Habsburg-Este line than for his daughters. Nonetheless, his younger son has a commoner girlfriend (from a rich and prestigious Spanish family but still commoners).

And even a marriage to a Nobile is more "unequal" than the marriage to a Baroness of which Lorenz allegedly disapproved for equality reasons.

When there were still dreams of a restoration of the monarchy, I guess many deposed royal families still clung to the idea that unequal marriages would undermine their legitimacy. But all such hopes are gone now, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

In the case of the Austrian monarchy, weren't such hopes gone already in 1993 when the apparently boycotted wedding was held?

Besides, there is a practical issue. Although I am not claiming royals are marrying for money, there is a trend now of many members of deposed royal houses marrying wealthy burghers or daughters thereof.

I think the trend of marrying wealthy burghers or their daughters/sons extends to reigning royal houses as well. In fact, it seems to me that more often than not, commoners who marry royals continue to come from families of wealth. Even to the general public, it seems it remains easier for a wealthy commoner to be accepted as a royal consort than a middle- or working-class one.

EDIT: Princess Maria Laura is an anomalous case, however, as she is both a member of a deposed ducal/royal/imperial house and 9th in line to the Belgian throne.

Which brings up an interesting point: Lorenz and his descendants are princes and princesses of the Belgian royal house, with all of the privileges accompanying their rank, only because the Belgian monarchy modernized some of its strict traditional policies, and he does not seem to find that objectionable.